Monday, December 31, 2012

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton allegedly fell after passing out on December 13th, giving herself a concussion. On December 30th, she was admitted to the hospital for a blood clot, after it had been reported two days earlier that she was expecting to go back to work this week.

No one knows where the blood clot is. In this report by NBC reporter Robert Bazell, it's learned that Clinton is allegedly being treated with blood thinners, which tends to eliminate the possibility that the clot is in a dangerous area.

Sunday, December 30, 2012

On December 28th, while guest hosting for Lynn Woolley, I had the opportunity to interview Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Jeffrey Lord of the American Spectator.

I talked to Pratt about his interview with CNN's Piers Morgan as well as the blatant hypocrisy from the left when it comes to Sandy Hook vs. Fast and Furious, an operation run by the ATF and DOJ. I spoke with Lord about his recent column on the fiscal cliff negotiations in which he made very salient comparisons between what's going on today and what happened in 1982.

Incidentally, Morgan's interview with Pratt continues to have legs. After tens of thousands of people of signed a White House petition demanding that Morgan be deported, the CNN anchor has written a column of his own in which he threatens to deport himself and actually names Pratt specifically as being the catalyst for the anti-Piers sentiment.

In the days after the fatal shootings of firefighters Mike Chiapperini and Thomasz Kaczowka in Webster, NY on Christmas Eve, it was learned that the shooter did not have legal access to guns; he had already been convicted of murdering his grandmother with a hammer. So how did he get them?

If you're familiar with what happened in Operation Fast and Furious, you're likely familiar with the term 'straw purchaser'. In the case of that operation, which began in 2009 and ended shortly after the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) led the operation with the approval of the Department of Justice. Straw purchasing was a key component of Fast and Furious as gun store owners were instructed by the ATF to sell weapons to straw purchasers, who then walked those guns across the border into Mexico, putting them into the hands of the drug cartels. The weapons found at the scene of Terry's murder were purchased by a straw purchaser with the ATF's knowledge and approval.

Back to the firefighter shootings...

It's now being reported that the man who lured firefighters to his burning home before shooting at them - killing Chiapperini and Kaczowka - was the beneficiary of a straw purchaser, who also happened to be his neighbor.

The neighbor, 24-year-old Dawn Nguyen, was arrested on Friday after police traced the serial numbers on two weapons used by William Spengler, the shooter: a Bushmaster AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and a 12-gauge shotgun, both purchased in 2010.

In exactly the same way, the guns found at Terry's murder scene were traced back to a gun store in Arizona where they were sold to someone who was known to be a straw purchaser for the drug cartels. When you add in the fact that the ATF knowingly allowed those guns to walk across the border, it becomes a matter involving the U.S. State Department, as this exchange from October of 2011 between Rep. Connie Mack and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton illustrates:

Remember, in the case of Fast and Furious, thousands of weapons were allowed to 'walk' into Mexico by U.S. Government officials and hundreds of people were murdered as a result. Here is what Nguyen did in the case of the firefighter shootings:

Nguyen violated federal law by signing a form declaring to a gun retailer that she would be the sole owner of the firearms, U.S. Attorney William Hochul said Friday. She also faces a state charge of filing a falsified business record, a state police investigator added.

“She told the seller of these guns … that she was to be the true owner and buyer of the guns instead of William Spengler,” Hochul said. “It is absolutely against federal law to provide any materially false information related to the acquisition of firearms. … It is sometimes referred to acting as a straw purchaser, and that is exactly what today’s complaint alleges.”

When it came to the weapons sold to straw purchasers in Fast and Furious, all of the aforementioned things took place, with one difference. The ATF knowingly allowed it in advance. There's another difference when it comes to consequences. No one at the ATF has been arrested. To give one an idea of how criminal this all is, consider the charges that Nguyen is facing based on the fact that she provided her neighbor with guns used in the commission of two murders in the U.S. (which didn't included the added element of straw purchasing and then transporting them across international borders):

The federal charges alone could send Nguyen to prison for a maximum of 10 years and levy a fine of $250,000. Both Nguyen and her brother told the media after the shooting that Spengler had stolen the weapons from her, but Nguyen later called police and admitted buying the guns for Spengler, according to police.

Spengler also possessed a .38-caliber revolver during the shooting, which he reportedly used to shoot himself in the head after his rampage. That weapon has not been connected to Nguyen.

Another difference between what the ATF did and what Nguyen did very well could be motive. Did Nguyen know what Spengler was going to do with the weapons she purchased for him? That has yet to be determined but the ATF absolutely knew what was going to happen as a result of allowing straw purchasers to walk those guns into Mexico; hundreds of people were going to get killed.

So what was the motive of the U.S. Government? The answer is the same thing we're seeing today - the exploitation of a 'crisis' to push a gun control agenda.

It becomes obvious that the rule of law applies to some and not others. In another incident involving the ATF, Meet the Press anchor David Gregory was allegedly allowed to break the law by holding up a 30-clip magazine on national television during a recent interview. Subsequent to that interview, it was reported that the ATF gave him permission to do so, despite their having no jurisdiction. To this day, the ATF official who allegedly gave Gregory permission has not been named.

What was Gregory's motive for displaying the magazine during his interview with the NRA's Wayne LaPierre?

As was the case with the ATF in Fast and Furious, gun control. Yet another example of the ATF allowing laws to be broken for a similar purpose.

Ends always justify the means when you're a creature of the left.

Some might remember this powerful report from Univision earlier this year, in which the carnage that resulted from Fast and Furious was investigated. Remember, straw purchasing is what enabled all of these murders, the same kind of straw purchasing that enabled the Christmas Eve firefighter shooter:

Friday, December 28, 2012

This is a bit of a continuation from a previous post about the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. that included then Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower dedicating the mosque on June 28, 1957. A re-dedication ceremony in 2007 included a speech by Republican President George W. Bush.

Meeting with you now, in front of one of the newest and most beautiful buildings in Washington, it is fitting that we re-dedicate ourselves to the peaceful progress of all men under one God.

And I should like to assure you, my Islamic friends, that under the American Constitution, under American tradition, and in American hearts, this Center, this place of worship, is just as welcome as could be a similar edifice of any other religion. Indeed, America would fight with her whole strength for your right to have here your own church and worship according to your own conscience.

This concept is indeed a part of America, and without that concept we would be something else than what we are.

The countries which have sponsored and built this Islamic Center have for centuries contributed to the building of civilization. With their traditions of learning and rich culture, the countries of Islam have added much to the advancement of mankind. Inspired by a sense of brotherhood, common to our inner most beliefs, we can here together reaffirm our determination to secure the foundation of a just and lasting peace.

Our country has long enjoyed a strong bond of friendship with the Islamic nations and, like all healthy relationships, this relationship must be mutually beneficial.

Civilization owes to the Islamic world some of its most important tools and achievements. From fundamental discoveries in medicine to the highest planes of astronomy, the Muslim genius has added much to the culture of all peoples. That genius has been a wellspring of science, commerce and the arts, and has provided for all of us many lessons in courage and in hospitality.

This fruitful relationship between peoples, going far back into history, becomes more important each year. Today, thousands of Americans, both private individuals and governmental officials, live and work-and grow in understanding-among the peoples of Islam.

At the same time, in our country, many from the Muslim lands-students, businessmen and representatives of states-are enjoying the benefits of experience among the people of this country. From these many personal contacts, here and abroad, I firmly believe that there will be a broader understanding and a deeper respect for the worth of all men; and a stronger resolution to work together for the good of mankind.

As I stand beneath these graceful arches, surrounded on every side by friends from far and near, I am convinced that our common goals are both right and promising. Faithful to the demands of justice and of brotherhood, each working according to the lights of his own conscience, our world must advance along the paths of peace.

Guided by this hope, I consider it a great personal and official honor to open the Islamic Center, and I offer my congratulations to its sponsors and my best wishes to all who enter into its use.

Thank you very much.

When it comes to where we are as a nation today, Democrats are bad but Republicans are not blameless... by any means.

Thursday, December 27, 2012

In 2007, President George W. Bush spoke at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. and was introduced by the mosque's director; the latter had a history that included time spent as a representative of an organization that has enabled Al-Qaeda. This was also the same mosque at which Bush spoke six days after 9/11/01 with Nihad Awad - Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) - at his side.

Before delving into the history of the Islamic Center of Washington of Washington, DC, consider the Ground Zero mosque for a moment. It was named 'Cordoba House' and the name was changed as opposition to the mosque grew and people began to learn more about the symbolic significance of the initial word choice, which was a city in Spain.

...the Christian city was conquered by Muslims around 711, its inhabitants slaughtered or enslaved. The original mosque of Cordoba—the namesake of the Ground Zero mosque—was built atop, and partly from the materials of, a Christian church. Modern day Muslims are well aware of all this. Such is the true—and ominous—legacy of Cordoba.

More pointedly, throughout Islam's history, whenever a region was conquered, one of the first signs of consolidation was/is the erection of a mosque atop the sacred sites of the vanquished: the pagan Ka'ba temple in Arabia was converted into Islam's holiest site, the mosque of Mecca; the al-Aqsa mosque, Islam's third holiest site, was built atop Solomon's temple in Jerusalem; the Umayyad mosque was built atop the Church of St. John the Baptist; and the Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque upon the conquest of Constantinople.

With that as a premise, shouldn't Americans take a second look at the motivation behind the Islamic Center of Washington, DC? If Islamic fundamentalists were to follow the formula of their forefathers and wanted to construct a symbol of future conquest, wouldn't they seek to do so at the heart of the Capital of the country that won the war?

Check out this excerpt from the history page of the mosque's website:

The Foundation’s membership quickly grew to include representatives from every Islamic nation in the world and American citizens. They all supported the Foundation’s appeal for funds. They managed to raise enough money that enabled them to purchase the land that the Center sits on now on Washington’s “Embassy Row”. They purchased the land on April 30, 1946, and laid the cornerstone on January 11, 1949.

Take note of those two dates in bold.
Generally, when people think of the defeated axis of enemies in World War II, Japan, Italy, and Nazi Germany come to mind but the Nazis had an ally that was never defeated. In fact, that ally never stopped fighting; that ally was the Muslim Brotherhood.
Again, if one accepts the notion that symbolism in Islam is very important, consider the date the land was purchased. Adolf Hitler's death occurred one year earlier, on April 30, 1945.
Via History Learning Site:

None of the bunker’s survivors heard the shot that killed Hitler. At 15.15 on April 30th, Bormann, Goebbels, Heinz Linge, Hitler’s valet, Otto Gunshce and Artur Axmann, Head of the Hitler Youth, entered Hitler’s sitting room. Gunsche and Linge wrapped the body of Hitler in a blanket and carried it to the Reich Chancellery garden.

Coincidence? Possibly.
How about January 11, 1949 - the date the cornerstone was laid. That date could be significant.

Tuesday 11 Raby` al-awal 1368 A.H. Laying the cornerstone on Jan 11, 1949 in the Islamic calendar is a day prior to the 12th day of Rabi-al-Awwal, which marks the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad, but keep in mind that Saudi Arabia is 10 hours ahead of the United States. While it was the 11th in the United States, it was very possibly the 12th in Saudi Arabia.

On June 28, 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower was on-hand to dedicate the mosque. Click here or on the image below for the video of a news report of the event at the time.

The countries which have sponsored and built this Islamic Center have for centuries contributed to the building of civilization. With their traditions of learning and rich culture, the countries of Islam have added much to the advancement of mankind. Inspired by a sense of brotherhood, common to our innermost beliefs, we can here together reaffirm our determination to secure the foundations of a just and lasting peace.

Our country has long enjoyed a strong bond of friendship with the Islamic nations. . . . Under the American Constitution, . . . this Center, this place of worship, is as welcome as could be any similar edifice of any religion. Indeed, America would fight with her whole strength for your right to have your own church and worship according to your own conscience. Without this, we would be something else than what we are.

Doesn't the "conscience" of the Muslim "Brotherhood" involve destroying America from within?
Yes, it does.
President George W. Bush returned to the Washington, DC mosque for the RE-dedication ceremony in 2007, fifty years after Eisenhower did it originally. The man who introduced Bush in the clip below is the mosque's director, Abdullah M. Khouj, who began his tenure there in 1984. According to the Weekly Standard's Stephen Schwartz, Saudi officials took over the mosque in 1983 and Khouj was subsequently appointed. Khouj has been a representative for the Muslim World League (MWL):

Khouj represented the Muslim World League (MWL), founded in Saudi Arabia in 1962 as an international agency for the propagation of Wahhabism. In 2006, relief branches of the MWL in Southeast Asia would be designated by the U.S. Treasury as financing fronts for al Qaeda. In addition, Khouj was admitted to the United States as a diplomat, allegedly serving as an attaché at the Saudi Embassy, but actually dedicated to advancing the most radical interpretation of Islam in history.

The MWL is significant for many reasons but one such reason is its involvement as the umbrella organization for the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA). This is the same IMMA where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, worked as an assistant editor for at least twelve years until leaving in 2009, to work for Clinton at the State Department. The man responsible for launching the IMMA was none other than Abdullah Omar Naseef, who was the Secretary General of the MWL when Khouj became the Director of the Washington mosque.
The Saudi Manifesto, reveals the MWL / IMMA connection:

"It [Muslim Minority Affairs] will work under the umbrella of the Muslim World League (MWL) and the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) and World Association of Muslim Youth (WAMY) and others."

Remember, Naseef also founded the Rabita Trust, an entity that was headed by Al-Qaeda founder Wael Hamza Julaidan and identified by the U.S. Treasury Department in October of 2001 as a terrorist organization. If Naseef was commissioned by the Saudi Royal family to found the IMMA, it would seem to indicate a willingness on the part of the Brotherhood and the Saudis to work together in some respects, the furthering of Islam in foreign lands, for example.

That's what the IMMA is all about.

It's important to remember that Khouj - the man who introduced Bush at the Washington, D.C. mosque re-dedication ceremony - was a representative of the MWL at the time of his being named director, according to Schwartz. The Rabita Trust was founded in 1988 by Naseef, four years after Khouj became the Director of the mosque.

Before watching the video of Bush's 2007 speech inside the mosque, consider that less than six years earlier, the Rabita Trust had been shut down by the Bush administration as a "Global Terrorist Entity". As a representative of the MWL, Khouj ultimately worked for an organization whose Secretary General from 1983-1993 was none other than Al-Qaeda financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef.

Note at the 1:15 mark in the video below that Bush references Eisenhower's speech from 1957 and quotes the former president. Said Bush:

"He (Eisenhower) asked that together we commit ourselves 'to peaceful progress of all men under one God.'"

This had not been the first time that Bush had conflated Islam and Christianity. William Murray, of the Religious Freedom Coalition chronicled his experiences in the days after 9/11 and wrote the following about what he witnessed on 9/14/01 at the National Cathedral, where then head of the Muslim Brotherhood's Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) - Muzammil Siddiqi - was in attendance:

Our Christian President had bowed his head to prayers offered to other gods, prayers that may have been for those who would destroy our nation and enslave our children to an alien religion. At that moment the hand of protection of the true God was removed from our nation.

Here is Bush at the 2007 re-dedication ceremony inside the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.

According to Schwartz, the mosque was built at the urging of various Muslim groups, to include the Turks. In 1998, before becoming Prime Minister of Turkey - Recep Tayyip Erdoğan - quoted from the following poem during a speech:

"The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers..."

Go figure. Today, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamist government of Turkey seem to be working together.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Upon release of the Accountability Review Board's (ARB) report on what happened in Benghazi, it was learned that the group singled out no individuals for discipline - the bureaucracy itself was identified as the party most responsible. There were, however, four State Department employees who reportedly resigned in the wake of the report.

Aside from the fact that none of the four individuals who allegedly 'resigned' were individuals who claimed to accept responsibility (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton), it appears they haven't really resigned at all.

The four officials supposedly out of jobs because of their blunders in the run-up to the deadly Benghazi terror attack remain on the State Department payroll — and will all be back to work soon, The Post has learned.

The highest-ranking official caught up in the scandal, Assistant Secretary of State Eric Boswell, has not “resigned” from government service, as officials said last week. He is just switching desks. And the other three are simply on administrative leave and are expected back.

The four were made out to be sacrificial lambs in the wake of a scathing report issued last week that found that the US compound in Benghazi, Libya, was left vulnerable to attack because of “grossly inadequate” security.

State Department leaders “didn’t come clean about Benghazi and now they’re not coming clean about these staff changes,” a source close to the situation told The Post., adding, the “public would be outraged over this.”

Some might remember an exchange between Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL) and Deputy Assistant Secretary Charlene Lamb at a House Oversight Committee in October. At the time, Adams pressed Lamb for the names of those who had the authority to deny requests for security in Benghazi. Lamb named both Eric Boswell and a man named Scott Bultrowicz. For some reason, all of the video excerpts from that hearing - once posted to the Oversight committee's YouTube channel, now get re-directed to an unrelated Darrell Issa speech but here is the exchange from another source (the relevant portion occurs within the first minute):

Ok, so Lamb admitted to Adams that the former didn't have sole authority to deny security. She pointed up the ladder to Boswell and Bultrowicz. The next logical question is: Did they have sole authority? If yes, then the ARB report would have erred by not naming either man as being responsible for security being withheld. If no, then someone above them had that sole authority.

The Post article only names three of the four individuals that were singled out for non-disciplinary discipline / resignation / re-assignments. They are:

Eric Boswell

Charlene Lamb

Raymond Maxwell

Via the Post:

The other officials — Deputy Assistant Secretaries Charlene Lamb and Raymond Maxwell, and a third who has not been identified — were found to have shown “performance inadequacies” but not “willful misconduct,” Pickering said, so they would not face discipline.

So who is the fourth individual? Could it be Scott Bultrowicz? The State Department website currently lists the two positions, held by Boswell and Bultrowicz respectively, as vacant:

Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security -- VACANT
The Assistant Secretary oversees Department of State security programs to protect U.S. Government employees and facilities under chief of mission authority overseas from terrorist, criminal, or technical attack, and ensures the integrity of classified national security information produced and stored in these facilities.

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security and Director of the Diplomatic Security Service -- VACANT
The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security/Director of Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) is the most senior Diplomatic Security Service special agent and is responsible for the Bureau of Diplomatic Security's international and domestic operations and training programs.

If Bultrowicz's job at the time of the Benghazi attack is now listed as vacant, it prompts at least two questions:

Why does he no longer hold that position?

If he is one of the four who resigned is getting re-assigned, why is he the only one of the four who hasn't been identified yet?

Earlier this month, Jay Carney took a question from Ed Henry - shortly after the release of the ARB report - about the four individuals "taking the fall". Four Americans dead as a direct result of decisions made by some of these individuals and the only discipline is reassignment?!

Perhaps a better case of 'thou doth protest too much' one would be hard-pressed to find. In reality, it doesn't appear that anyone has either taken the fall or been held accountable, at least not in any way proportional to the consequences of their actions / inaction.

Monday, December 24, 2012

Perhaps one of the biggest differences between Rick Santelli's 2009 Tea Party rant on CNBC and this rant by CNBC's Maria Bartiromo is that Bartiromo's was directed squarely at a Democratic Senator during a live interview. Other than that, very similar, even right down to the cheers from the floor behind her. The Senator that Bartiromo thoroughly shamed was Ben Cardin (D-MD) and what made it borderline epic is the fact that the typical spin coming out of the mouth of a politician was met with righteous indignation and batted away like a fly by Bartiromo.

Cardin's spin was like oxygen from a bellows directed at Bartiromo's fire.

Even Cardin couldn't refute what was at the heart of her anger, which was essentially, Congress has had more than a year to avoid the proverbial 'fiscal cliff' and it's still not close to a deal with less than a week to go. The only response Cardin could put forth was one that validated Bartiromo's indignation - it's the Republicans' fault.

It'd be nice to see this kind of fire from Republican leadership. It's what voters have been demanding for quite some time. Why Mitt Romney lost is a case in point.

If there is a face that illustrates left-wing absurdity in the gun control debate, it belongs to Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and he again showed the world why, during an interview in which he said:

"The state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence."

Gee, Mr. Nadler, for someone who sat through many House Judiciary Committee hearings into Operation Fast and Furious, that's quite an insane position. Every time Nadler opens his mouth on matters of gun control, he seems to confirm lines that have already been connected to several dots. For example, Fast and Furious was an attempt by forces in the U.S. Government (at least the ATF and DOJ) to give guns to bad guys to kill good guys so the subsequent carnage could be used to push for that Government monopoly Nadler talks about. The Big Government left denies this claim and smears those who legitimately make it.

On the day of the Sandy Hook shootings, Nadler literally stated that the president should 'exploit' the shootings for stricter gun control laws. Later that evening, Nadler said that the NRA was 'enablers of mass murder'. Incidentally, NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre did not mention these comments by Nadler during the former's speech on December 21st.

LaPierre's unwillingness to confront the likes of Nadler during his press conference is another in a long line of examples of how Second amendment advocates just don't appear able to actually fight their bullying opposition.

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Let's get one thing straight. The left is responsible for politicizing the Sandy Hook shootings. That effort began almost immediately afterward. Rep. Jerrold Nadler even said Obama should 'exploit' the shootings and that the NRA is enabling 'mass murder'. With all that said, the pro-second amendment crowd has to fight back.

But they don't seem interested in going on offense.

There are currently two aspects to the growing gun control debate. One has to do with banning assault weapons and the other has to do with 'gun free zones'. The National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre chose to focus on the the latter and all but completely avoided the former. That was a mistake because it ignores a central component in the debate. If it can be made clear why assault weapons should be legal, it can be more easily made clear that 'gun free zones' must either cease to exist or be protected with armed security, which is what LaPierre is advocating.

The left is throwing hay makers in the gun control debate and the right is either throwing jabs or covering up. When gun control advocates question gun rights proponents about whether assault weapons should be available, the response inevitably involves something about the gun not being the problem and that the maniacs who use them irresponsibly is the problem.

The default position always seem to be tried and true platitudes: Guns don't kill people; people kill people. In the case of NRA's Wayne LaPierre, the takeaway line in his speech was:

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

It's a good line that happens to be true but it won't shift the debate or put the left on its heels, which is what needs to happen. Unless at least one of those two things happen, nothing will happen.

First up, how to shift the terms of the debate. The reason for the second amendment is either not understood or it is ignored by those who support gun control. Its purpose is not enunciated - though it is known - by those who oppose gun control.

When one takes the verbiage of the second amendment and couples it with verbiage found within the body of the Declaration of Independence, the true reason why assault weapons should not be banned is made clear.

AMENDMENT II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The reason for the second amendment can be found in the Declaration:

...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Our founding fathers wanted the citizenry to be armed so that it could defend itself from a tyrannical government. LaPierre knows this and so do gun rights advocates but they seem to be either incapable or unwilling to say it. Assault weapons aren't necessary for hunting or even for home defense but they would be necessary if the Government turned on its people. That forces want to take those weapons away at a time when corruption and wickedness in the U.S. Government is as high as its ever been, bold red flags should be raised.

Essentially, the only real argument in response to that from the gun control crowd is one that says there will never be any danger of the U.S. Government becoming tyrannical like King George was or that people who fear such a thing are being paranoid. That is a losing position. Any government can become tyrannical. In fact, most do.

Yet, the argument isn't made by the most prominent of second amendment advocates.

LaPierre focused on home protection from intruders but that is not an argument for the legality of assault weapons, which is what the other half of the debate which the left is focused on. The argument for assault weapons is the citizenry protecting itself from a repressive government. LaPierre didn't make that case.

That's how the debate could be shifted. As for putting the left on its heels, Operation Fast and Furious would do that. The Obama administration - along with the media - has stonewalled getting to the bottom of it. The ATF / DOJ didn't just send assault weapons to Mexican drug lords. The guns that were allowed to 'walk' across the border included .50 calibers, which are far more powerful than the assault weapons the left wants to see banned in the U.S.

After watching the second amendment come under attack, LaPierre gave a speech one week after the Sandy Hook shootings. What he didn't mention in that speech was the lack of media / left-wing outrage at the government-sanctioned, Fast and Furious, which is responsible for hundreds of deaths in Mexico.

Again, LaPierre knows the truth about that operation but he chose not to contrast it with what gun control advocates are doing in the wake of Sandy Hook.

LaPierre's speech is below; it starts shortly after the 1:00 mark. At about the 4:55 mark, some Code Pink whacko interrupts and holds a banner that says, 'NRA Killing our Kids'. Medea Benjamin, another Code Pink whacko who supported the 2010 Gaza flotilla does the same thing at around the 11:00 mark. Code Pink has been conspicuously absent over the last two years when it came to Fast and Furious.

Now for another example of a gun rights advocate in a position of power choosing not to enunciate a winning argument (relevant portion of exchange begins around the 10:00 mark). Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) was on with the Morning Joe crew and when the discussion turned to the subject of whether assault weapons should be banned, Huelskamp so twisted himself into pretzels that he ended up having to defend himself against charges from host Joe Scarborough that Huelskamp was accusing the host of politicizing the shootings. Fast forward to the 10:25 mark to watch Huelskamp tie his own hands behind his back.

At the 11:40 mark, Scarborough asks the congressman why Americans need assault weapons. Instead of explaining why the founding fathers wanted the citizenry to have the right to bear arms or throwing Fast and Furious right back into Scarborough's lap, Huelskamp - who is obviously championing a pro-Constitutional agenda - punts.

At the 12:40 mark, Scarborough even gave Huelskamp the chance to argue for the constitutionality of assault weapons being legal. Instead of saying WHY the second amendment allows for it, Huelskamp glosses over it and then argues that Sandy Hook should not be politicized. Scarborough takes offense and Huelskamp loses the argument because he didn't use the correct one.

In fact, by avoiding the argument that should have been made, Huelskamp actually made it worse for himself. As for the shootings being exploited by the left, Huelskamp should have pointed to Nadler as the perfect example. Instead, he let Scarborough control the debate.

Now, after watching that, have a look at this answer to a question at the Miss Universe Pageant by Miss Venezuela. She seemed to have the same problem Huelskamp did, though to a much greater and more obvious degree. The question was:

If you could make a new law, what would it be and why?

The question was potentially quite politically charged. If Miss Venezuela would have done what Carrie Prejean did and answered by giving her true beliefs on a social issue, for example, there would be a backlash she obviously didn't want - based on her response.

Instead, viewers were treated to an incoherent answer that included an obscure surfing reference.

“I think that any leys there are in Constitution or in life, are already made. I think that we should have, uh, a straight way to go in our similar, or, eh, in our lives as is this. For example, I’m a surfer, and I think that the best wave that I can take is the wave that I wait for it. So please do our only, eh, law that we can do. Thank you, Vegas!”

Friday, December 21, 2012

At some point, it should be required to play circus and / or twilight zone music in the background whenever anyone from the Obama administration talks about Benghazi. First, the Accountability Review Board (ARB) established by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton determined that no one was accountable. Now, the two men who headed the ARB - Admiral Mike Mullen and Ambassador Thomas Pickering - appeared to say two demonstrably different things about the attack.

The relevant duration of the event shrunk from "almost eight hours" to "only about 20 or 30 minutes" when a reporter asked this "accountability" team why the U.S. military had not been sent to Benghazi to help that night.

During his opening statement at a State Department briefing, Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who chaired the ARB, said the terrorist attacks occurred over a span of almost eight hours.

“What happened on September 11th and 12th in Benghazi was a series of attacks in multiple locations by unknown assailants that ebbed and flowed over a period of almost eight hours,” Pickering volunteered.

About 20 minutes later in the same briefing, as Ambassador Pickering nodded his head in agreement, retired Admiral Michael Mullen, the vice chairman of the ARB, put the Benghazi terror event in a very different timeframe. He said it lasted only about 20 or 30 minutes.

Mullen referred to the attack only lasting for "20 or 30 minutes" in response to a question about why the military couldn't have done more. Based on the CIA timeline - which said the attack he is referring to lasted nearly two hours - it would seem that Mullen collapsed that window of opportunity for the military to act.

This one is a must-read but make sure you're playing the video below as you watch the video above.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

First up, this exchange between CNN's Piers Morgan and Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America (GOA). Take note of all the name-calling and where it's coming from. According to Morgan, Pratt is a "dangerous" and "stupid" "idiot" who offends Morgan by "laughing". Though the issue of Fast and Furious doesn't come up, a central theme in this post is Morgan's behavior, so pay particular attention to it.

It's 11 minutes but you won't want to stop watching until the very end, at which point, Pratt even manages to successfully drop a Neville Chamberlain line on Piers.

CNN's Piers Morgan has been frothing at the mouth over the issue of gun control since the horrendous Sandy Hook shootings less than one week ago. Yet, for the last two years, his righteous indignation over Operation Fast and Furious has been conspicuously absent, if he has addressed the government-sanctioned operation at all.

At Sandy Hook, a man who reportedly worshipped 'Satan', illegally accessed legally registered guns and murdered people with them. As a brief aside / reminder, Barack Obama's hero, Saul Alinsky, had reverence for 'Lucifer' as well. The resulting carnage is being exploited by people like Morgan and Obama to argue for more gun control.

Conversely, Fast and Furious was the result of the U.S. Government (ATF / DOJ) intentionally putting assault weapons (the same weapons Obama and Morgan want to ban) into the hands of Mexican drug cartels so that there would be similar carnage that could be exploited in the same way that Sandy Hook is currently being exploited. Those plans went sour when it was learned - thanks to whistleblowers - that two guns from the operation were found at the murder scene of U.S. Border patrol agent, Brian Terry. Since then, it has been learned that hundreds of Mexicans have been murdered with guns placed into the hands of those cartels by the ATF.

To put this in the proper context, what the ATF did in Fast and Furious would be akin to someone breaking into the home of the Sandy Hook shooter, getting access to his mother's guns, giving them to the shooter, and letting him do what he did.

The silence from mainstream media types like Morgan on Fast and Furious, coupled with his caterwauling over gun control because of Sandy Hook, says far more than if Morgan had remained measured in his reporting of the Newtown / Sandy Hook shootings. The attempt to gin up a climate for more gun control is exactly what Fast and Furious was supposed to do. Morgan is essentially implicating himself with his own bi-polar behavior when it comes to Fast and Furious vs. Newtown.

Here is an exchange on Morgan's network from June of this year, in which CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin completely dismissed any hint of Eric Holder being culpable in Fast and Furious. In reality, if Morgan were consistent, Holder would be responsible for the DOJ / ATF not only failing to control guns but for giving them to bad guys.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

The 'Independent' Accountability Review Board (ARB) - established by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to investigate the attack in Benghazi on 9/11/12 - has reached at least one bizarre conclusion in its unclassified report. That conclusion appears to run counter to what Clinton herself said approximately two months earlier when asked about the State Department's role in preventing the attack.

"I take responsibility. I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. " - Hillary Clinton on Benghazi attack, 10/15/12

"...the Board did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty." - Accountability Review Board on Benghazi attack, 12/18/12

"I'll take responsibility but it's not my fault" - unknown

Yes, it's ridiculously oxymoronic and Orwellian to consider that the 'Accountability' Review Board would investigate something for two months and ultimately determine that no one person is accountable in the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. Adding to the sick irony is the quote placed at the very top of the report:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Based on the conclusion of the ARB - that no one is accountable - it is the ARB itself that seems not to have grokked that lesson. Perhaps a better quote to headline the report with would be:

"The buck stops here."

If the ARB had any interest in being true to its moniker, it would have agreed with the person who established the ARB and concluded that Hillary was ultimately responsible, and therefore accountable. Then again, when the person who establishes the ARB is the one who wants responsibility without accountability, we have a bit of a predictable report.

As for history repeating itself, holding no one single individual in the State Department's massive bureaucracy accountable does at least one thing; it reinforces bureaucrats' belief in more bureaucracy because it protects them all from accountability. It is the friend of each individual in it.

The ARB is the entity that has not learned from history and is repeating it.

It should also be clarified that no one individual on the ARB will be held accountable for failing to learn this lesson.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

In 1940, as the fate of Great Britain was in grave doubt, Member of Parliament (MP) Leo Amery gave a speech that called for the necessary ouster of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. In 2012, the United States finds itself in a similar position and the man who holds the position that wields the most power is John Boehner, someone on par with Chamberlain. Here is an excerpt from Amery's speech, via the Guardian:

Somehow or other we must get into the government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory. Some 300 years ago, when this house found that its troops were being beaten by the dash and daring of Prince Rupert's cavalry, Oliver Cromwell spoke to John Hampden. In one of his speeches he recounted what he said. It was this: "I said to him, 'Your troops are most of them old, decayed serving men and tapsters and such kind of fellows'… You must get men of a spirit that are likely to go as far as they will go, or you will be beaten still."

It may not be easy to find these men. They can be found only by trial and by ruthlessly discarding all who fail. We are fighting today for our life, for our liberty, for our all; we cannot go on being led as we are. I have quoted certain words of Oliver Cromwell. I will quote certain other words. This is what Cromwell said to the Long Parliament when he thought it was no longer fit to conduct the affairs of the nation: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go."

Speaker of the House John Boehner is a weak leader who must be ruthlessly discarded, not with violence but with resolve and fortitude. His fight or flight response is to cry; we saw that after the Republicans won a majority in the House after a tidal wave of Tea Party support and enthusiasm. Conservative voters did their part. They put Republican congressmen - who chose to have Boehner lead them - in charge of the House of Representatives. Boehner was entrusted with voter confidence and he has failed them.

In the first two years of the Obama administration, Boehner was essentially powerless to stop the Democratic agenda. But he talked very tough. Why? For one thing, there were no real consequences - other than support from a base that lapped up the red meat afforded them by a commiserating leader - for doing so.

Remember this outrage at the stimulus bill?

For some perspective, the stimulus bill that Boehner was so indignant about then is a drop in the bucket of what he's advocating for today - when he actually has power. Negotiations to avoid the 'fiscal cliff' have involved two people behind closed doors - Barack Obama and John Boehner - and every time those two people emerge from behind those closed doors, one of them emerges as a beaten man, a man on the brink of crying.

We know this because that beaten man proceeds to negotiate with himself.

In 2009 and 2010, Boehner was leading the charge against closed-door meetings; now he's a participant. In fact, he's advocating for the same deal that former Speaker Pelosi put forth several months ago.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told House Republicans on Tuesday he will move to a “Plan B” on the fiscal cliff by having the House vote on legislation to extend tax rates on annual income under $1 million.

The bill would allow tax rates on annual income above $1 million to rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, but make permanent lower rates on income below that threshold, Boehner's office said.

But a Schumer spokesman said things changed with the reelection of President Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to raise tax rates on annual income above $250,000.

"Republicans should've taken Senator Schumer's offer two years ago when they had the chance," Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon said. "We've had an election on the president's tax plan, the president won, and Republicans can't turn the clock back."

Translation: Boehner is groveling to the Democrats with a plan in his hand that Pelosi put forward several months ago, before the election. Predictably, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and the Democrats are turning up their noses. They are doing so because Boehner is not acting like he's the Speaker of the House; he's acting like a semi-reluctant presidential subject.

If Obama is the cat, Boehner is the yarn ball.

Yes, Boehner is so weak that not only is he doing deals behind closed doors with Obama - something he decried when he wasn't in power - but he is advocating a position once espoused by Nancy Pelosi when he's in the room alone with the president. And Obama is still telling him no.

If such a position was strategic and done early on in this process, Boehner could be excused. Now that it appears to be an act of desperation, he may as well be running around a race track in his underwear:

Imagine if, in 2009, Obama and Pelosi negotiated behind closed doors to negotiate a new tax deal. Not only would Boehner have heard a cacophony of outrage from Tea Partiers but he'd have responded with like-minded outrage... and it would have been easy because it wouldn't have required leadership.

Whether it's caving on tax rates or the debt ceiling, Boehner is revealing himself as a political eunuch on practically a daily basis. This debate is no longer about the 'fiscal cliff'. Frankly, we've already gone over it. This is about Obama breaking the will of conservatives by breaking the back of John Boehner.

The problem is that Boehner's back is much more brittle than the back of the conservative wing. It should be the other way around, which is why we conservatives must shout with one very clear voice:

"You (Boehner) have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, we say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go."

Let's face it. Boehner has failed and must be "ruthlessly discard(ed)" because of that failure.

On the same night that Barack Obama injected his gun control agenda into a speech at a memorial intended for the victims of the Newtown, CT school shootings, a gunman in San Antonio, TX was attempting another mass shooting in a local theater. The outcome was quite different than what happened in Aurora, CO - the site of another mass shooting inside a theater recently.

Two people are hospitalized after a gunman chased terrified restaurant patrons into the lobby of the Santikos Mayan 14 movie theater during a showing of "The Hobbit" last night, 1200 WOAI news reprots.

Police detectives and sheriff's investigators say the incident started in the China Garden Restaurant on Southwest Military Drive about 9 PM Sunday, when an employee of the restaurant walked in looking for a woman.

When the woman, who officials say is also a restaurant employee, wasn't there, the man pulled a gun and attempted to open fire in the restaurant but his weapon jammed.

"It started at the restaurant and then went into the parking lot and then into the movie theater," Deputy Lou Antu told 1200 WOAI news.

Investigators say some of the terrified restaurant patrons poured into the movie theater, and the gunman followed.He opened fire, shooting one man in the chest, before Antu says an off duty sheriff's deputy who was working security at the theater shot him once.

"The officer involved, she took the appropriate action to try to keep everyone safe in the movie theater," Antu said.

The gunman and the patron are hospitalized.

Antu says the gunman never made it into the theater itself, thanks largely to the heroic work of the off duty deputy.

"She did what she felt she had to do," Antu said. "I feel that she saved a lot of lives by taking the action she had to take."

During an appearance on MSNBC to discuss his controversial comments during an NFL Sunday Night Football halftime show (about the Jovan Belcher murder / suicide), Bob Costas said the following about the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting inside a theater:

It demonstrates itself in the wild west, Dirty Harry mentality of people who actually believe that if a number of people were armed in the theater in Aurora, they would have been able to take down this nut job in body armor and military style artillery when in fact almost every policeman in the country would tell that you that would have only increased the tragedy and added to the carnage.

When Costas later appeared with Bill O'Reilly, the NBC sportscaster said that if he were in a theater and there was a mass shooter, he wouldn't want to have a gun.

Granted, the person who stopped the shooter inside a San Antonio movie theater lobby was an off-duty police officer but the issue here is the ability to neutralize someone with a gun, who is determined to kill innocent, unarmed civilians. Law-abiding citizens, properly trained in the use of a firearm, can be just as effective as an off-duty police officer in the same situation. Just ask Bob Costas. He has armed security at his disposal.

In Costas' case, he also told O'Reilly that he would not want a gun in such a situation. Perhaps that's because he travels with people around him who have guns.

Like Costas, Obama's speech occurred during an NFL Sunday Night football game and the network broke in to air it.

The irony was that as Obama was politicizing the recent mass shootings, another one was being averted in Texas by what the gun control nuts want banned.

For once, I am inclined to believe Hillary Clinton. The U.S. Secretary of State, suffering from a sick stomach, has reportedly fainted and bumped her head. As a result, her spokespeople have already announced that she will be unable to testify at the Benghazi hearings, although she was not due to appear until December 20, many days after the vaguely reported fainting spell.

Already, the internet is resounding with a chorus of "How convenient!" (See here and here, for example.) Many, upon hearing this news, are assuming that Clinton, who has been hedging for a month on whether to appear at the congressional hearings, has concocted yet another excuse to avoid facing the music on a scandal which, if pursued with integrity, would likely end her political career, to put it mildly.

Read it all. It's not entirely what you might think after those first two paragraphs.

Incidentally, and to Jonescu's point that Hillary should testify anyway, The New York Times reported that her fall occurred "early last week" (presumably Sunday the 9th, Monday the 10th, or Tuesday the 11th), it hadn't been diagnosed until Thursday the 13th and that it was "not severe". This report conflicted with what Foreign Policy reported, that the episode occurred on Saturday, the 15th.

If the concussion was indeed diagnosed on the 13th, that diagnosis took place on the same day that it was reported Hillary would testify on the 20th. Later in the day, on the 13th, reports began to surface that Hillary may not testify on the 20th because the Accountability Review Board (ARB) report may not be completed.

On the 15th, it is learned she will not testify.

On the 16th, it is learned that two other State Department officials will testify in her place and oh, by the way, the ARB report will be done by the 17th.

Saturday, December 15, 2012

The alleged fainting spell and subsequent concussion of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appears a bit suspicious when factoring in all of her stonewalling and obfuscation to this point. It all started on September 16th, when U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice - instead of Hillary - appeared on five Sunday talk shows to give demonstrably false information about the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Rice said in an interview with NBC's Brian Williams that the reason Hillary 'declined to do it' was because the Secretary of State was too tired after a 'grueling week'.

On November 30th, when Hillary was asked why Rice appeared on those shows instead of her, the Secretary of State responded that she wouldn't answer a "hypothetical" about what could have happened.

No, she really said that (at the :37 mark):

Even MSNBC's resident RINO, Joe Scarborough could see right through this one. Start watching at the 2:40 mark when the Morning Joe Crew airs a snippet of Rice's interview with Williams but pay more attention to Scarborough's reaction afterward. He is convinced that the reason Hillary didn't do those shows was because of a political calculation, not because of fatigue.

Before moving on, time for another illustration of what Scarborough was talking about, via Jim Carrey, who represents Susan Rice in this metaphor:

Back to Hillary...

On October 2nd, the House Oversight Committee sent Hillary a letter asking for answers about why requests for security at the Benghazi consulate were ignored. Her response?

Ignore the letter.

On November 1st, the House Oversight Committee sent Hillary another letter, asking about documents that had come into the possession of the Committee which showed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and officials at the consulate were very concerned about their security on the day of the attack. Her response?

Ignore the letter.

In early November, it was reported that Hillary declined to appear before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the 15th of that month because she would be in Australia.

“She was asked to appear at House Foreign Affairs next week, and we have written back to the chairman to say that she’ll be on travel next week,” said department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. She did not answer a question about whether Clinton would be willing to fly back from Australia to address either the Foreign Affairs panel or the Senate and House closed-door intelligence committee hearings getting to the root of the Benghazi scandal.

On December 10th, it was reported that Hillary would be canceling her trip to the Middle East due to a stomach virus. Three days later, it was reported early in the day that she would be testifying in front of the Senate and House foreign relations committee on December 20th. Later in the day, it appeared that Clinton was backing away from testifying because the Accountability Review Board (ARB) had not completed its report and probably wouldn't by the 20th.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said today that the ARB is not complete, might not be complete by Dec. 20, and Clinton has not agreed to testify on Dec. 20.

“The Hill has talked about a planning date on the calendar. That presumes that the ARB is finished,” Nuland said. “That’s dependent on all of the work getting done between now and then… The ARB is continuing to do its work, to my knowledge it has not yet completed its work.”

Clinton has agreed to brief the House and Senate foreign relations committees on how she interprets the ARB report, whenever it surfaces.

In the wake of this equivocating, pressure was no doubt applied to the State Department by committee members. For one thing, they announced that Hillary would testify because the date was on the State Department's calendar. For another thing, committee members insisted that they have access to the ARB report despite Nuland's claims that all Hillary could agree to was to include Congress in her response to the ARB report. None of that includes how frustrated many committee members are by how long Clinton and the State Department have been stonewalling.

Then, on the morning of December 15th, Hillary faints as a consequence of her stomach virus and gets a concussion.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won't testify to Congress next week on Benghazi, after fainting and suffering a concussion Saturday and due to her ongoing stomach ailment.

"While suffering from a stomach virus, Secretary Clinton became dehydrated and fainted, sustaining a concussion," Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Philippe Reines said in a statement. "She has been recovering at home and will continue to be monitored regularly by her doctors. At their recommendation, she will continue to work from home next week, staying in regular contact with Department and other officials. She is looking forward to being back in the office soon."

Deputy Secretaries of State Bill Burns and Tom Nides will both testify in Clinton's place, according to the office of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA).

Note how suddenly the readiness of the ARB report is no longer an issue. Bill Burns and Tom Nides are about to assume the same position that Susan Rice did on September 16th and isn't it interesting that they'll apparently be doing it whether the ARB report is completed or not.

One day before Clinton's fortuitous fall, Fox News' Chris Stirewalt wrote the following:

Clinton can hardly leave her post before a replacement is confirmed, so her goal is to keep the Benghazi business from damaging her valedictory weeks at Foggy Bottom.

It’s a tricky task, but as Rice learned and Obama has been taught again, Clinton is not someone to be underestimated.

Perhaps, but a concussion caused by passing out from a stomach virus days before she was set to testify?!

If Scarborough was right about why Hillary didn't appear on those Sunday shows, this latest bit of news is at minimum, very suspicious.

Before sending Rice out to do the talking, Hillary was apparently too tired to do it herself. Now, before sending Burns and Nides out to do the talking, she has a virus that caused her to fall on her head.

One thing should be very, very obvious. Hillary Clinton does not want to talk about Benghazi.

Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. - Saul Alinsky (Jerrold Nadler agrees)

The shooting deaths of 20 young school children in Connecticut happened on the second anniversary of the shooting death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Before the sun set on the day of the school shootings, shamelessly opportunistic Democratic politicians went to work exploiting and politicizing the heinous event to push their gun control agendas. Yet, for the last two years, they've had no interest in getting to the bottom of Terry's murder. Why? Well, because very powerful people inside the Obama administration were behind an operation intended to give guns to bad guys and then exploit the predictable deaths for the same reason - gun control.

Earlier this year, at the NRA Convention, House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa said the following:

“We’ve never answered the question, ‘What were they thinking of?’ Could it be that what they really were thinking of was in fact to use this walking of guns in order to promote an assault weapons ban. Many think so, and they haven’t come up with an explanation that would cause any of us not to agree.”

To that point, Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were all too happy to push a false narrative that said 90% of the guns used in the commission of crimes in Mexico, come from America.

Here is Hillary during an interview with CBS reporter Lara Logan in March of 2009. Begin watching at the :30 mark:

Here is Obama in April of 2009, touting the same bogus statistics. Take note at the 1:00 mark:

Eventually, that "90%" figure was proven to be false. If it was false, why was it being touted?

It is amazing that Bloomberg and Cuomo would speak out in support of gun control so soon after these shootings because of their collective silence on Operation Fast and Furious. In that case, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) intentionally let guns 'walk' into Mexico and the Department of Justice (DOJ) at the highest levels was in on it.

As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Nadler had plenty of opportunities to call out Attorney General Eric Holder on the Department of Justice's role in Fast and Furious. It was a program that was implemented by the ATF for one primary reason - to put guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, who would then kill innocent people with those guns. The plan was to "exploit" those deaths to create the climate for more gun control.

In the case of Fast and Furious, guns were intentionally given to bad guys for the purpose of killing innocent people. In the case of the Connecticut shootings, a bad guy was solely responsible for using a gun to kill innocent children.

Yet, Obama, Bloomberg, Cuomo, and Nadler want to 'exploit' the shooting deaths of those children for the purpose of pushing gun control?!

Friday, December 14, 2012

One month after the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton took responsibility for the security of everyone who works for the State Department. In a sane world, that would mean that she should have to answer some very hard questions about why the consulate there was repeatedly denied security - in some cases, security was withdrawn. Also worthy of note this week has been Clinton's expected testimony in front of House and Senate foreign relations committees.

Therefore, in her interview with ABC's Barbara Walters, a sane interviewer would want to get some answers relative to Benghazi and the plethora of unanswered questions about that which Hillary said she was responsible for. That's not what happened.

Walters found at least two things more important to ask Hillary about.

Her hair

Her plans for 2016

That's right. Walters was disinterested in asking questions about Hillary's role in a scandal that could make her unfit for another presidential run.

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) is perhaps most infamous for his stated fear that the island of Guam could become so populated that it might tip over and "capsize". During the race-baiting circus in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, Johnson said that Martin was shot for "WWB in a GC" (Walking while black in a gated community).

Johnson's latest foray into the absurd involves a bit of a confession. You see, in addition to finding the "N" word offensive, Johnson apologized for using the "M" word.

What's the "M" word you might ask?

"Midget". The only reason we know is because Hank let it slip. Does that mean he should resign?

There is a question I am dying to ask this guy:

How many midgets M-words would it take on the island of Guam to cause it to capsize?

How in the world can conservatives expect House leadership to fight the Obama administration when it employs the same tactics? The House 'Purge list' that has served to widen the chasm between the establishment and conservative wings of the Republican Party continues to be hidden from view by House leadership.

Breitbart's Matthew Boyle reported that the alleged author of the list - House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy - agreed to meet with the Republican Study Committee (RSC) to provide some clarity and transparency. However, something apparently came up and McCarthy did not attend the meeting.

House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy blew off a scheduled meeting with the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC) on Wednesday. At the meeting, McCarthy was going to explain the secret criteria list, including a voting scorecard, that he created for House Speaker John Boehner to use in his purge of conservatives from influential House committees.

A source familiar with the situation told Breitbart News that McCarthy backed out of the meeting at the last minute – after having agreed to it last week. “Congressman McCarthy did agree last week to attend today’s RSC meeting to discuss the issue of the four members removed from their committees,” the source told Breitbart News. “Citing the need to attend to a family matter, he did not end up making it to the meeting.”

Roll Call and POLITICO both have articles that point to what could be a new narrative developing as to the reason for the jettisoning of the four conservative House members from their committees - that the men were booted because the were "A-holes" who publicly criticize House leaders. In either case, the stonewalling that has come from House leadership only serves to raise more questions and exacerbate tensions.

For example, there seems to be some inconsistencies with respect to McCarthy's absence from the RSC meeting.

Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, who was booted from a coveted spot on the House Budget Committee and also lost his position on the Agriculture Committee, told reporters that McCarthy was going to address the group. RSC Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio told the group the whip would be there to explain whether a secret vote scorecard had been used to weigh whether to kick members off committees. But a GOP leadership aide said McCarthy was never scheduled to attend.

That led to Jordan telling the group that McCarthy had, in fact, bailed out at the last minute to tend to a family emergency, said Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana, who was at the meeting.

“That was the announcement Jim made, that [McCarthy] was going to be here to tell us whether or not there was scorecard and what it meant if there is one and then some things came up at the last minute,” he said. “My understanding is a family matter came up and he’s leaving to go back home.”

McCarthy was still in town when the House voted, hours after the RSC meeting.

So, did McCarthy miss the meeting because he wasn't scheduled to be there or because of a family emergency? While we're at it, were the four conservative members booted from their committees because of their votes or because they were "A-holes"?

The parallels between Operation Fast and Furious and the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi continue to mount. The latest example comes courtesy of Kerry Picket. She is reporting that Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who serves on the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, says the State Department is not allowing him to talk to any of the survivors of the Benghazi attack.

Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R- UT) told Breitbart News on Wednesday that he has been “thwarted” by the State Department from seeing any Americans who survived the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. Many people forget that there were Americans who survived the Benghazi attack, some of whom were badly injured and are still recovering.

“My understanding is that we still have some people in the hospital. I’d like to visit with them and wish them nothing but the best but the State Department has seen it unfit for me to know who those people are—or even how many there are,” Rep. Chaffetz said. I don’t know who they are. I don’t know where they live. I don’t know what state they’re from. I don’t even know how many there are. It doesn’t seem right to me.

So, how is this reminiscent of how the Fast and Furious investigation was handled?

Consider the names Kevin O'Reilly and William Newell. When the DOJ / ATF - led Operation Fast and Furious was at its peak, there were communications between Newell and O'Reilly, who at the time was Director of North American Affairs with the National Security Council (the White House). If one ATF employee could be placed at the center of Fast and Furious, Newell might be that guy.

Here is a very compelling exchange between Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Newell from July 26, 2011 in which Gowdy confronts the former SAC about an email between O'Reilly and Newell. Shortly after this exchange, O'Reilly was transferred to Iraq to work as a State Department employee:

Obviously, after O'Reilly's name was brought into the Fast and Furious scandal, Oversight Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) wanted to talk to him. Here is an exchange between Issa and Fox News Channel's Bret Baier a couple of months after the July 26th hearing:

More than one year later, O'Reilly returned from Iraq to work at the State Department.

Obama administration employee Kevin O’Reilly -- who congressional investigators called “the link connecting the White House to the [Fast and Furious] scandal” -- is back in the United States now after abruptly leaving his White House job to work in Iraq in 2011 after emails concerning him and Fast and Furious had surfaced.

O'Reilly left the United States in August 2011, shortly after his knowledge of the gun-walking program was publicized during a congressional hearing on July 26.

O’Reilly has so far refused to cooperate with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which recently threatened to subpoena him. He also refused to cooperate with the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General, which investigated the program and recently released its findings.

Both the House committee and the Inspector General's office sought to interview O'Reilly about Fast and Furious but the White House refused to grant him permission to be interviewed.

Another curious bit of timing involved the release of the DOJ's Inspector General report just weeks before O'Reilly's return from Iraq, meaning that O'Reilly left for Iraq shortly after he became a person of interest for the Oversight Committee and returned shortly after the DOJ IG issued its final report. Despite this, the White House said that was all coincidence:

In August 2011 -- after the e-mails were first discussed at a July 26 congressional hearing -- O’Reilly was named as the senior director of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Programs in Iraq, a State Department position.

The State Department official told CNSNews.com that O’Reilly’s reassignment to Iraq from the White House “was a standard foreign service career rotation that had been planned for months in advance of his detail to the NSS.” The State Department could not confirm O’Reilly’s new title at the State Department.

So, what do Kevin O'Reilly and the survivors of the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi have in common? All are State Department employees (presumptively); all were somehow connected to operations that involved the murder of American officials; and all are being prevented from speaking to Congressional committees who want and deserve answers.